In In re BioClinica, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery in a memorandum opinion on a motion to expedite examined the cumulative effect of deal protection devices to determine whether they should have been deemed preclusive under Omnicare.

The plaintiffs in BioClinica argued that the impact of a combination of (i) a standstill provision in the confidentiality agreement signed by a potential alternative bidder, which prevented that bidder from acquiring BioClinica other than through a tender offer, and (ii) a rights plan constituted an impermissible lock-up, because the announcement of a tender offer would trigger BioClinica’s poison pill.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×